## Facts

- Klaus Barbie was a Gestapo officer (a lieutenant) during the German occupation of France (1942–1944), operating in Lyon.
- French authorities issued an arrest warrant after the war, but Barbie fled to Bolivia.
- A French tribunal tried Barbie in absentia, convicted him of war crimes, and sentenced him to death.
- France sought Barbie’s extradition from Bolivia, but Bolivia denied the requests, citing the absence of an extradition treaty.
- In 1982, French authorities brought additional charges against Barbie for crimes against humanity, alleging, among other acts, the murder of thousands of persons, arbitrary arrests, deportations of Jews and members of the French Resistance to concentration camps, torture, illegal imprisonment, brutal treatment, and assassinations.
- Bolivia later expelled (deported) Barbie on the ground that he had obtained Bolivian citizenship by fraud, which enabled French authorities to arrest him once he was within French control.
- In pretrial proceedings, the chambre d’accusation limited the crimes against humanity counts to acts tied to the Nazi persecution and killing of Jews on racial and religious grounds.
- The chambre d’accusation treated alleged crimes committed against members of the French Resistance as war crimes rather than crimes against humanity and held those Resistance-related charges barred by the French statute of limitations applicable to war crimes.
- The public prosecutor and civil parties appealed. The appellate court maintained the limitation ruling as to Resistance-related crimes.
- The dispute reached the Cour de cassation (Criminal Chamber), whose rulings (reported together in 78 I.L.R. 125) addressed (i) challenges based on Barbie’s transfer to French custody and (ii) the boundary between war crimes and crimes against humanity and the effect of limitation periods.

## Issues

1. Whether Barbie’s expulsion from Bolivia and arrest by France, alleged to be a disguised extradition, required dismissal of proceedings or nullification of custody.
2. Whether crimes against humanity, as applied in French law by reference to the London Charter, were limited to acts targeting victims selected on racial or religious grounds.
3. Whether acts committed against members of the French Resistance could qualify as crimes against humanity (and therefore avoid limitation) when carried out in connection with Nazi policies of persecution.
4. Whether crimes against humanity are subject to statutory limitation periods under French law, and how that differs from war crimes.
5. Whether the European Convention on Human Rights or the ICCPR provided Barbie a right to the benefit of a limitation period or otherwise barred prosecution for crimes against humanity.

## Decision

- The Cour de cassation rejected the argument that Barbie’s expulsion from Bolivia and subsequent arrest by France invalidated proceedings; the manner of his return did not, by itself, bar prosecution once he was before French courts.
- The Court confirmed that crimes against humanity are not subject to statutory limitation periods.
- The Court reaffirmed that war crimes remain subject to ordinary limitation rules under French law, but conduct can be characterized in a way that affects whether limitation applies.
- The Court rejected a narrow approach that confined crimes against humanity solely to persecution on racial or religious grounds and held that, in appropriate circumstances, persecution and inhumane acts directed against political opponents (including Resistance members) could fall within crimes against humanity when linked to a broader plan of persecution carried out in the name of a State pursuing ideological domination.
- The Court set aside, in relevant part, lower-court reasoning that treated Resistance-related atrocities as only war crimes subject to limitation, and required reconsideration under the correct legal characterization.
- The Court rejected reliance on human-rights treaty provisions as creating a right to limitation in prosecutions for crimes against humanity.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant’s presence before the court is not defeated merely because the defendant was brought within the forum’s control through an expulsion or other irregular transfer, even where extradition procedures were not used.
- Crimes against humanity, as defined by reference to Article 6(c) of the London Charter and received into French law, are imprescriptible (not time-barred).
- Crimes against humanity are not confined to racial or religious persecution; inhumane acts and persecution against political opponents may qualify when committed pursuant to a broader plan of extermination or persecution carried out in the name of a State practicing ideological hegemony.
- War crimes and crimes against humanity are distinct categories for limitation purposes: war crimes may be time-barred under domestic limitation rules, while crimes against humanity are not.
- Human-rights instruments addressing legality and non-retroactivity (including ECHR Article 7(2) and ICCPR Article 15(2)) do not create an entitlement to a statute of limitations for crimes against humanity and permit punishment of conduct criminal under general principles of law recognized by nations.

## Conclusion

Matter of Barbie, 78 I.L.R. 125 (1988), reports key Cour de cassation rulings in the pretrial phase of Klaus Barbie’s prosecution, holding that Barbie’s expulsion from Bolivia did not bar French proceedings, reaffirming that crimes against humanity are not subject to limitation periods, and rejecting a narrow definition that would exclude persecution of Resistance members where the acts were committed as part of a broader Nazi plan of persecution carried out in the name of ideological domination.
